Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 04 2014

Consensual review edit

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0001.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The meeting and prayer room of Wat Chan, Vientiane -- DerFussi 19:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Cayambe 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      Comment It looks wee tilted to the right (0.001 deg? :), which wouldn't be ok if the angled POV and the natural inclination of the trees didn't increase the tilt appearance. Otherwise it is great, despite the dull sky which can't be changed. --Stegop 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Nationalpark_Jasmund_-_Insel_Rügen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Chalk cliffs of Rügen, Jasmund National Park, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. By User:Hrauk --Frank Schulenburg 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose - Composition and lighting (sky, contrast, colours)) --Steinsplitter 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything with the composition or colours, but the low levels need brightening. Mattbuck 07:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Somewhat oversharpened and small compression artifacts. @Mattbuck: Yes, the dark side of the tree ;-) is a bit too dark and shows no detail, but thats at the margin and imho not really an issue. Lacking geo coordinates. -- Smial 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me --DKrieger 15:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang_--_2014_--_0798.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Capturing the yearlings: Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Red channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  Fixed Red channel is improved.--XRay 06:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Severe problems with composition (the head is hidden and it's impossible to see what the middle guy is doing. Also hard to see value of this photo among the other better images of the same happening. --Averater (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 19:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang,_Vorprogramm_--_2014_--_0499.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Preliminary Program (unknown actor); Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Red channel blown on jacket. --Kreuzschnabel 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  Fixed Red channel is now improved. It's better. Thanks for your advice.--XRay 06:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, much better. Generic1139 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'. Chamomile.
    Famberhorst 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose At first sight it is good, but looking carefully, I think that the DOF should cover the center of the flower and not only the foreground. Sorry, I imagine how difficult it can be shooting this kind of photo. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Have to disagree with Stegop. Think focus is well chosen. Object well represented and sharp. --Klaproth 23:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support DoF a bit small indeed, but acceptable here IMO --Christian Ferrer 10:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Essential parts are sharp enough. -- Smial 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background, especially the flower to the left. --Averater 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Averater and poor DOF--Lmbuga 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)